ORDER : (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ, J.) This successive bail petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C ., praying to enlarge the petitioner- accused No.3 on bail in S.C.No.877/2021 pending on the file of LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City, arising out of Cr.No.18/2021 registered at Amruthahalli Police Station, Bengaluru City. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Special Prosecutor for the respondent – State and perused the material on record. 3. Petitioner had earlier approached this Court for similar relief. Crl.P.No.9775/2022 was dismissed on merits vide order dated 20.4.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.12281/2023. The Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the said petition vide order dated 4.12.2023, permitting the petitioner to renew her request if the trial did not commence within a period of six months, provided that the petitioner participates actively in the expeditious trial. 4. Subsequent to the dismissal of the petition by the Hon’ble Apex Court, petitioner once again approached the learned Sessions Judge seeking bail in Crl.Misc.No.1964/2025. The said petition was dismissed vide order dated 18.3.2024. 5. This Court while dismissing the bail petition in Crl.P.No.9775/2022 has considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, hence, facts in detail need not be adverted to. However, the relevant facts which may be necessary for the disposal of the petition may be stated as under: Petitioner/accused No.3 is the second wife of the first informant by name C.R.Devender Singh. Deceased Siddarath Devender Singh is first informant’s son born to his first wife. One Dr.Anjali Geetha, first informant’s sister and her husband Dr.Vishnu Shankar Shukla (CW6) were issueless. They owned valuable immovable properties. After the death of his wife, Dr.Vishnu Shankar Shukla was looking after the properties. Petitioner was under the impression that, the entire property belonging to Dr.Vishnu Shankar Shukla will be inherited by the deceased and her children will not get the property. Hence, she hatched a conspiracy with accused No.1, with whom she had an acquaintance and assured payment of supari of Rs.4 lakhs to eliminate the deceased. In turn, accused No.1 conspired with accused Nos.2 and 4. In furtherance of the conspiracy hatched, accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 kidnapped the deceased in a Swift Desire Car bearing registration No.AP 03-CB-4034 on the night intervening 18/19.1.2021 and took him towards Andhra Pradesh. In turn, accused No.1 conspired with accused Nos.2 and 4. In furtherance of the conspiracy hatched, accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 kidnapped the deceased in a Swift Desire Car bearing registration No.AP 03-CB-4034 on the night intervening 18/19.1.2021 and took him towards Andhra Pradesh. On the way, accused Nos.1 and 4 committed his murder by strangulating with the seat belt and buried the dead body in a forest area. 6. Charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 4 for the offence punishable under Section 302, 201, 120-B, 364 r/w 34 of IPC. Accused No.1 is no more. Accused Nos.2 to 4 are facing trial before the Court of learned LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City (CCH-63). 7. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is as under: i. Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offence. She has been falsely implicated, only on the basis of confession statement of the co-accused, which has no evidentiary value and cannot be treated as substantive evidence. ii. According to the prosecution, motive is attributed to the petitioner alleging that she wanted to knock off the properties of CW6- Dr.Vishnu Shankar Shukla, whereas the said witness examined as PW6 has not supported the said version of the prosecution. iii. The material witnesses including the first informant/CW1 examined as PW5 has turned hostile and not supported the case of prosecution. iv. There are no eye witnesses and the entire case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. There are no acceptable material to show the complicity of the petitioner in the alleged crime. Suspicion however grave will not take the place of proof. v. PWs.1 to 4 are hearsay witnesses. Their evidence do not incriminate the petitioner in any manner. vi. Petitioner is a woman. She was arrested on 2.2.2021 and languishing in custody since then. She has two minor children, who are now under the custody of her relatives. vii. There are 88 witnesses cited in the charge sheet. As of now, only 11 witnesses are examined. The conclusion of the trial will take a considerable period. viii. Petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions and she will offer sufficient surety to ensure her regular presence before the trial Court. 8. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied on plethora of judgments in support of his contention seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 9. viii. Petitioner is ready and willing to abide by any conditions and she will offer sufficient surety to ensure her regular presence before the trial Court. 8. The learned counsel for petitioner has relied on plethora of judgments in support of his contention seeking to enlarge the petitioner on bail. 9. Learned Special Prosecutor has filed statement of objections opposing the prayer for bail. He has contended that this is a successive bail petition, wherein earlier petitions seeking bail are rejected by this Court and by the Hon’ble Apex Court. The charge sheet material indicates that there is more than reasonable grounds to believe that the petitioner arraigned as accused No.3 has committed the alleged offence. There are calls and messages exchanged between the petitioner and other accused. Petitioner is the main conspirator and motive is also attributed against her. She is not a permanent resident of Bengaluru and therefore, there is every chance of flight risk. Further, there is every apprehension that she has means to influence the witnesses. 10. Relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of X v. State of Rajasthan in SLP (Crl.) No.13378/2024 disposed on 27.11.2024, the learned Special Prosecutor contended that, ordinarily in serious offences like rape, murder, dacoity etc., once the trial commences, the Courts should not loath in entertaining the bail application of the accused. 11. Relying on a decision in Mamatha Nair v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2021) 7 SCC 442 , he contended that in case the FIR and charge sheet shows prima facie case, it is not proper to extend the liberty of bail. 12. Relying on a decision in Krishna Kant v. State of U.P. (Crl.Misc.Bail Application No.33329/2020 DD.16.12.2022), he contended that hostility of the witnesses cannot be a new ground for granting bail. The learned Special prosecutor would also contend that there are no special or changed circumstances to consider the bail petition. He has accordingly sought to dismiss the petition. 13. The nature of allegations and material against the petitioner was considered by this Court in the previous bail petition, which was dismissed on 20.4.2023. The Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition, permitted the petitioner to renew her request if the trial did not commence within a period of six months. The trial Court has once again dismissed bail petition. 14. The Apex Court while dismissing the Special Leave Petition, permitted the petitioner to renew her request if the trial did not commence within a period of six months. The trial Court has once again dismissed bail petition. 14. It is well settled that there is no general bar or impediment in moving a successive bail application. The sine qua non for filing such successive bail application is a change in circumstances or substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case due to subsequent events. 15. It is not in dispute that the trial has now commenced. However, out of 88 witnesses cited in the charge sheet, as of now only 11 witnesses are examined. Petitioner was arrested on 2.2.2021 and she is in judicial custody since then. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has not disputed the fact that the material witnesses such as CWs.1, 5 and 6, examined as PWs.1, 7 and 6 respectively have not supported the case. However, hostility of the witnesses by itself cannot be a ground for granting bail. If any view is taken on the basis of the evidence of such hostile witnesses, it amounts to evaluating the evidence by this Court, which is impermissible while deciding a bail application. The appreciation of the evidence shall be left to the trial Court. 16. In Union of India v. K.A.Najeeb reported in AIR 2021 Supreme Court 712, at para-16, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under: “This Court has clarified in numerous judgments that the liberty guaranteed by Part III of the Constitution would cover within its protective ambit not only due procedure and fairness but also access to justice and a speedy trial. In Supreme Court Legal Aid Committee (Representing Undertrial Prisoners) v. Union of India, it was held that undertrials cannot indefinitely be detained pending trial. Ideally, no person ought to suffer adverse consequences of his acts unless the same is established before a neutral arbiter. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. However, owing to the practicalities of real life where to secure an effective trial and to ameliorate the risk to society in case a potential criminal is left at large pending trial, the courts are tasked with deciding whether an individual ought to be released pending trial or not. Once it is obvious that a timely trial would not be possible and the accused has suffered incarceration for a significant period of time, the courts would ordinarily be obligated to enlarge them on bail.” 17. The Hon’ble Apex Court has held on number of occasions in catena of judgments that an accused is entitled to a speedy trial which is traceable in Article 21 of Constitution of India. If the alleged offence is a serious one, it is all the more necessary for the prosecution to ensure that the trial is concluded expeditiously. It is settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment. It is also well settled that a Court while deciding a bail application has to keep in mind the principal rule of bail which is to ascertain whether the accused is likely to appear before the trial Court and other parameters like gravity of offence, likelihood of accused repeating the offence and influencing the witnesses. 18. In the present case, petitioner has been in judicial custody since 2.2.2021, i.e., for more than four years. It is not to be forgotten that the petitioner is a woman and entitled to consideration for bail even under Section 437 (1)(ii) of Cr.P.C . (480 (1)(ii) of BNSS, 2023). The prosecution has not disputed that the petitioner has two minor children who are now under the care and custody of her relatives. As already noted, there are 88 prosecution witnesses cited in the charge sheet, out of which only 11 witnesses are examined. Delay is not attributable to the petitioner. Petitioner has undertaken to furnish sufficient surety ensuring her regular presence before the trial Court. Considering all these facts and circumstances, by imposing suitable conditions, petitioner can be admitted to bail. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. Petitioner/accused No.3 in Crime No.18/2021 of Amruthahalli Police Station, pending in S.C.No.877/2021 on the file of the Court of LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City, shall be enlarged on bail, subject to following conditions: 1. Hence, the following: ORDER i. Petition is allowed. ii. Petitioner/accused No.3 in Crime No.18/2021 of Amruthahalli Police Station, pending in S.C.No.877/2021 on the file of the Court of LXII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru City, shall be enlarged on bail, subject to following conditions: 1. She shall execute a personal bond for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only), with two sureties for the likesum and one of them shall be a local surety, to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional Court. 2. She shall furnish proof of her residential address / place of stay and shall inform the Court, if there is change in the address. 3. She shall not directly or indirectly tamper with the prosecution witnesses. 4. She shall not indulge herself in committing any offence. 5. She shall appear before the trial Court regularly on all dates of hearing. Violation of any of the conditions shall result in cancellation of bail.